The existence of an alternate statutory remedy under the RERA Act limits the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions, directing parties to the Appellate Tribunal for resolution of disputes.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

This is a batch of 12 petitions whereby the petitioner company has assailed the judgment and order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as RERA). The private respondent had filed 12 separate complaints before the RERA, relating to different units of the project known as Urban Woods Phase-II launched by the petitioner company, Vatika Nirman Private Limited. All the 12 complaints have been decided by the common order dated 02.01.2024 which have been assailed by filing the aforesaid 12 separate petitions though the grounds and submissions is common in all, hence all the petitions have been clubbed together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Shri Shantanu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily attacked the order passed by the RERA dated 02.01.2024 on the following grounds: (i) the impugned order is without jurisdiction, (ii) the relief granted by the RERA is not within its domain as it is not entitled to grant any declaratory relief; (iii) the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice; and (iv) the order is patently illegal.

3. Elaborating his submission, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondent was a director of the petitioner company and was also incharge of the day today functioning. The private respondent no.2 submitted his resignation on 17.08.2019. During his tenure as the director, he was also the Chief Financial Officer and the sole authorized signatory to the bank accounts uptill February 2022.

4. It is urged that the respondent no.2 had committed financial fraud by siphoning of money of the petitioner company. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 first transferred a sum of Rs. 3,42,12,942/- from his personal account to the current account of the petitioner company and on the very same day rather soon thereafter the said amount was transferred from the account of the company to another company M/s. D. S. Infra Heights Private Limited which was also controlled by the respondent no.2 who was its shareholders and director.

5. It is also pointed out that this entire transaction was fraudulent and with a oblique motive; inasmuch as on the strength of the aforesaid transfer the private respondent set up a claim that the company had allotted 15 units in its project Urban Woods Phase-II and with connivance and one Sri K. D. Singh, he got, 15 Builder-Buyer Agreements signed on behalf of the company through Sri K. D. Singh in his own favour and as such the said agreements were illegal and were an outcome of fraud and coercion, hence no right could accrue in favour of private respondent.

6. It is also submitted that on the strength of the aforesaid 15 Builder-Buyer Agreements the private respondent filed the 12 complaints before the RERA. As soon as the petitioner company became aware of the aforesaid illegal transaction, the petitioner company took various steps in its attempt to control the damage done to the company by the private respondent.

7. The petitioner company filed several complaints against the private respondent no.2. The petitioner also filed a Civil Suit bearing No.93 of 2023 seeking a relief of declaration that 15 Builder-Buyer Agreements said to be executed in favour of the private respondent no.2 (which also included the 12 Builder-Buyer Agreements which were the subject matter of the complaints before the RERA) were void.

8. The petitioner company also filed proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal at Prayagraj wherein the aforesaid transaction were also highlighted to indicate the systematic siphoning of money by the private respondent. It is, therefore, urged that where the aforesaid issues were already pending before various courts and tribunals and the parties were contesting, the attempt to file the complaints before the RERA by the private respondent no.2 was without jurisdiction as the issues were to be determined b